P L D 1954 Peshawar 64 (PLP)
SULTAN MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Defendant‑Petitioner Versus KHUDA BAKHSH and another‑Defendant‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1954 Peshawar 64 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SULTAN MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Defendant‑Petitioner Versus KHUDA BAKHSH and another‑Defendant‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | N.W. F. P. Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1954 Peshawar 64 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: N.W. F. P. Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1954 Peshawar 64 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1954 Peshawar 64 (PLP) (SULTAN MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Defendant‑Petitioner Versus KHUDA BAKHSH and another‑Defendant‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Allah Bakhsh, for Petitioner.
- Bahrawar Saeed, for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SHAFI, J.‑On 14th December, 1953, Khuda Bakhsh instituted a suit against Sultan Muhammad Khan and Haji Muhammad for possession by pre‑emption of the equity of redemption in respect of 2 Kanals out of 14 Kanals 17 Marlas of land, situated in Mahal Tirahi, Tahsil Peshawar, on payment of Rs. 1,
000. On 28th December 1953, the trial Court required the pre‑emptor to deposit in Court Rs. 1,000 before 14th January 1954. On 12th January 1954, the plaintiff made an application, saying that the order of the deposit of Rs. 1,000 appeared to have been made by mistake, and that Re. 1,000 were in fact payable to the mortgagees, and the Court should, therefore, not have ordered him to deposit this amount in Court. On 14th January 1954, it transpired that the plaintiff had not deposited the required amount. The Court without giving any reason just extended the time for the deposit of Rs. 1,000 to 30th January 1954, on payment of Rs. 30 as cost to the other party. Sultan Muhammad Khan has come up in revision to this Court, and it is argued on his behalf that the Court was not justified in extending the time, and that it should have rejected the plaint as required by section 23 (4) of the N.‑W. F. Province Pre‑emption Act, 1950. Under the above provision of law, the Court has the juris diction to grant further time to the plaintiff to deposit the required amount, but, then, this jurisdiction the Court must exercise for good and sufficient reasons, and certainly not in favour of a pre‑emptor whose conduct has been mala fide. In the case before me, the Court extended the time as has already been mentioned not only for not good and suffi cient reasons but for no reason at all. The pre‑emptor did not deposit the amount because he was under the belief that the order was erroneously passed, and that he should not have been required to deposit Rs. 1.000 at all. The pre‑emptor then did not deposit the amount intentionally for the reason which was far from bona fide. In my view, under the circumstances, the Court had absolutely no jurisdiction to extend the time, and its order is, therefore, on the face of it, wrong and illegal. I consequently accept this revision petition, set aside the order of the learned trial Court, and reject the plaintiff's plaint with costs throughout. Pleader's fee Re.
30. Orders announced. A. H. Petition accepted.